It can be refferd to as a period whereby European powers colonised, invaded, occupied and annexed African territories in a very rapid and unprecedented manner, even though there was little interest in Africa up to the 1870's. In fact, up to 1880 Europeans ruled merely 10% of the African continent. Yet within 30 years, by 1914, European nations will have claimed all of Africa except Liberia (a small territory of freed slaves from the United States) and Abyssinia (Ethiopia), which had successfully held off Italian invaders at the battle of Adowa in 1896. The partitioning of Africa was seen as a means of easing tensions between European states which was high in the late 19th century and avoid a full blown out war in Europe over Africa. The Berlin conference was held in 1884-5 as a way of establishing trade and borders of territories. The dominating states at the conference where Germany, Britain, France and Portugal. Africa was divided into 50 colonies without any regard for cultural and linguistic societies that were already established there which has led to conflicts between the independent African states after World War II. There were no representatives for the African states at the conference.

THEORIES OF IMPERIALISM Conservative theory states that imperialism is necessary to maintain existing social order in more developed countries. In addition to secure trade markets, maintain employment and capital exports. Supporters of this theory are Disraeli, Rhodes and Kipling.

Liberal theory states that imperialism is a policy choice and not an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Increase concentration of wealth in the affluent nations leads to under consumption for the majority of people. This can be solved by increase in income of the majority of the population. Supporters of this theory are Hobson and Angell.

Marxist theory states that imperialism arises because of increased concentration of wealth leads to under consumption however since the state represents the capitalist interest it is not possible to reduce under consumption through liberal strategies. According to Lenin the world would be completely divided up and the rich countries would then fight over the re-division of the world. Supporters of this theory are Karl Marx and Lenin.

Political theory states that imperialism is simply a manifestation of the balance of power and is the process by which nations try to achieve a favourable change in the status quo. Supporters of this theory are Morgenthall and Cohen.

Social psychological theory states that imperialism is an object less expansion a pattern simply learnt from the behaviour of other nations and institutionalised into the domestic political process of a state by a state by a warrior class. Supporter of this theory is Schumpeter.

THE MOTIVES OF THE SCRAMBLE AND PARTITION OF AFRICA The need for supplementary sources of raw materials. The emergence of mass society brought improved standard of living for the lower and middle classes, which composed the great majority of the population. The rise in real wages accompanied by the decline of various costs for consumers led to an increase in mass consumption. Moreover, the expansion of new transportation systems, such as automobiles and railroads, allowed the populations to move and enjoy new forms of leisure. Consequently, the production of those equipments required tremendous and reliable supplies of raw materials such as rubber and steel. The First Industrial Revolution had already led western industrialists to exploit the European natural resources. Furthermore, products such as rubber were only available abroad. Consequently, necessary raw materials were imported from Africa. The desire to explore markets abroad. Industrials needed to investigate the wide range of potential markets abroad because the western market was subject to fierce competition between the different industries. Producers...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...What were the major historical factors explaining ‘the scramble for Africa’?
In order to approach this essay question, my analysis will be divided into two parts. The first section will define what the scramble for Africa means. In the subsequent sections, I will refer to the case history of colonization of Africa by some European countries, the motives behind their actions and its consequences on Africa particularly.
The scramble for Africa was described as the golden period of European expansionism in the 19th century. It was an age in which the continents of Africa, Asia and Middle Eastern states were brought under the control of European powers following the Berlin Conference from 1884 to 1885. Hobsbawm (1987: 56) describes the period as an era of empire since it evolved out a new type of imperialism which is based on an ancient notion referred to as the age of “emperors”. It was a period in which European superpower nations such as Great Britain, France, and Portugal, to mention but a few, emerged economically strong following rapid industrialisation, with the objective to pursue national interests overseas.
The scramble for Africa started when the benefit of industrial revolution gave rise to unprecedented expansion in the production of goods and services, which needed to be exported to outlandish markets....

...﻿WHY DID THE SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA HAPPENED WHEN IT DID?
Main points
Introduction
Strategic Rivalry
Bismarck’s Weltpolitik
The clash of rival imperialisms
Medical advances
Military innovations (steam engines and iron hulled boats, breach loading rifles)
A succession of international crisis leading to World War I
The colonization of the Congo Empire (early 1880s)
The Suez Canal
The 1884-1885 Berlin Conference
Britain’s occupation of Egypt and SouthAfrica
The 1898 Fashoda Incident
The Moroccan Crisis
The colonial consciousness and colonial exhibitions
The ‘colonial lobby’
Colonial Propaganda and Jingoism
INTRODUCTION
The Scramble for Africa inaugurated a major revolution in the relationships between European and African peoples, and the political, social and economic changes it provoked still shape the face of Africa as we know it today. The industrial Europe of the nineteenth century required a specialized world with areas dedicated to the production of raw material for the industrial process, others to the production of food for the people. In order to create a world market for industrial goods, Europe needed to refashion the world with structures and institutions that would permit the resources to be exploited and trade to be conducted. Why did the Partition of Africa happened when it did? Why did Europeans suddenly race for the inland after centuries of...

...Examine the economic arguments used to explain the partition of West Africa.
In the late 1880s, only limited areas of Africa were subjected to the direct rule of Europeans. However, the next 20 years saw an increase in the confiscation of African colonies by the Europeans and by 1914 the partition of Africa had been consolidated. By 1914, with the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, the whole ofAfrica had been partitioned and occupied by the imperial powers of France, Britain, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Spain and Italy, and colonialism was implemented. However, by 1918 Germany lost its African colonies and they were distributed among the other European powers. Lenin and Hobson both argue that the partition of west Africa was highly economically motivated. These two scholars economic motives are somewhat similar to each other but Lenin argues more firmly that the crisis was one of finance capital and the development of "monopoly capitalism / oligopoly capitalism". In addition, it may be interpreted that though the partition of West Africa can be seen as largely for economic motives, it is acknowledge that there were other factors, which led to the partitioning of West Africa.
The French conquered most of the territory of West Africa. They established control over the interior Savanna,...

...The Scramble For Africa
After the Berlin conference, European powers occupied and colonized areas in Africa, in order to gain resources. But many Africans weren't too happy with the idea of the Europeans coming in and controlling them. During the scramble of Africa, the actions and reactions of Africans was that some surrendered their territory and control over to the Europeans, while others rebelled against them. Others tried to appeal through religion and believed culture would give them an upper hand.
One of the main actions and reactions of Africans during the European scramble for their nation was that they surrendered their own territory and gave the Europeans control over to them. For example, document one is a form of contract by the Niger company to administer and develop the Niger River delta. This cedes control of African territory over to the British, that was later said to be signed by many African rulers. British people wanted to have legal control over to Africans, so the Africans were compliant and obedient.This contract was a direct result of surrendering over to the Europeans.Another example that shows that the Africans gave up to the Europeans is shown in document four where an African veteran talks to others. He states that if it weren't for the European’s technological advances, chances were they could have won, so they had no choice but to give up. “So...

...explaining ‘the scramble for Africa’?
The scramble for Africa has aptly been described as the golden period of European expansionism in the 19th century. It was an age in which the continents of Africa, Asia and Middle Eastern states were brought under the control of European powers following the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. Eric Hobsbawm, one of the leading authorities on European imperialism, described the period as “the Age of Empire not only because it developed a new kind of imperialism, but also a much more old-fashioned reason…” referred to here as the age of “emperors” (1987: 56). It was essentially a period in which a handful of European powers (Great Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Germany etc), having emerged economically strong following rapid industrialisation, set out to pursue radical national interests overseas.
The scramble for Africa began at a time when the benefit of industrial revolution gave rise to unprecedented expansion in the production of goods and services, which needed to be exported to outlandish markets. For, the partition and the haggling that went it did not come out of the blue. It was orchestrated by a combination of factors and conditions under which European powers faced in their metropolitan countries at the time. Having lost their North and South American colonies, Australasia and the...

...During the 1800s, Europeans began to have their eyes set on the continent of Africa, as they went after their natural resources. As they scrambled for Africa, their hypocritical actions enraged some Africans while others just gave in to the Europeans since they had more technology, and seemed more powerful. Some African nations, tired of the European treatment towards them, decided to unite and fight them. (Doc7).Others simply stood firm and didn’t want anything from the Europeans. They didn’t want their technology or developments. They wanted to keep their customs and traditions (Document 2). Some didn’t want to be colonized but they didn’t start any battle immediately, but started peacefully. Even though this period was a time of anger, sadness, and pain for the Africans, it led to their independence and freedom in the future.
The Europeans main purpose in Africa was to control them and their resources, as they didn’t really care about the customs, traditions, and the people. This can be seen in Document 1, as the British government in charge of the Royal Niger Company, makes the African chiefs sign a document that gives power to the British but doesn’t interfere with the native laws and traditions. The authors of this document clearly saw that they couldn’t just come in and take total control of the country, so they decided to give these chiefs some power, so as to make them feel important and loyal to them. Another...

...Francisco Osornio
Scramble for Africa
During the Berlin Conference from 1884-1885 the European powers divided up the continent of Africa in order to avoid wars amongst the European powers. However, not a single African leader was invited to the Berlin Conference. The leaders of the native African kingdoms reacted to European imperialism by clearly expressing their opposition to the European officials, highlighting how strange and hypocritical European culture was, and implementing any means available to fight the Europeans.
The African leaders elucidated that they would never give in to European imperialism. Prempeh I, an Ashanti leader, clearly stated that he would never allow Britain to conquer the Ashanti kingdom (Doc. 2). Prempeh I demonstrated an extreme amount of courage to stand up to one of the strongest European powers, but his unwillingness to submit to Britain was greater than his fear of defeat. Yaa Asantewa made a speech to the chiefs, telling them that they needed to muster their courage to fight the British soldiers (Doc. 6). She adamantly believed that the chiefs of West Africa should never give in despite the doubt and fear they might feel. Samuel Maherero, a leader of the Herero people, told another African leader that he needed to resist the Germans because they were ruthless (Doc. 7). He knew that the Germans could easily defeat him militarily, but he still deemed it important to resist...

...Pre-Conceived African and Irish Stereotypes
Neha Ghani
AMH2097 Section One
Fall 2012
October 11th, 2012
Pre-Conceived African and Irish Stereotypes
Immigrants migrating to America have for hundreds of years had the disadvantage of being different from the “majority”. Categorized as “the other”, immigrants have been judged and assumed to be and act in certain ways based on common expectations that had been established long before they had even arrived. Referred to as pre-conceived stereotypes, they have been the reason why countless immigrant groups have been discriminated against and oppressed. Two such groups that have had to deal with these stereotypes and the intense and unjust scrutiny that came with being who they were are the Africans and the Irish. Just for possessing the physical attributes, characteristics, and attitudes wildly different from those of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, these immigrant groups were seen as nothing but inferior all throughout history.
Starting with the Africans, it is undeniable that they have been a people that have long suffered the wrath of the Europeans. In need of justification for why it was acceptable to imprison West Africans, Europeans formulated these pre-conceived stereotypes, the first of which was Blackness. Europeans, white in color, believed themselves to be pure, good and god like. Therefore, it was only obvious that the Africans, black in color, were the complete opposite. Africans were seen as the...